mattvardy Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 Do you guys think that the TRP might just be a popularity contest? Is that the reality of it [the TRP]?<p> I think that many of the photographers listed on the pages, are there not only because their images are good, but more influentially, they have a ton of "interested" and "friend"ly viewers of their work - receiving 1000 views and 50+ ratings is sometimes easy, not to mention fast. In *some* cases, I think the ratings are a little over-inflated because of mate-rating. <p> Take, for example, the scene (I think by Wellmann, one of the most "interesting" people on PN with 1091 "friends") of the fall-coloured trees and water. Don't get me wrong, its a great and beautiful shot (by a fantastic photographer, far better than myself); but, is it really all that original? I'm not sure, hard to say...<p> Similar beautiful fall images found elsewhere, by less-popular photographers with fewer "friends", get less visibility, fewer ratings, and [conceivably] a lower average - and don't make it to the TRP (which makes sense because TRP's are top-rated-photos).<p> To wrap it up... <br> I think the TRP is not just the top-rated images, but those by the most popular photographers with the most friends on PN. So the TRP fills up with numerous shots by the same photographer because those photographers are popular. Not sure I think that should be in the site's best interests; but in terms of the forum, like its title implies, it is designed for the top-rated images (regardless of who took them).<p> If this somehow diminishes the site, or is not in the site's best interest; then the TRP [imo] has to be re-designed, and of course re-named.<p> Just my full $0.02. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul e. wog Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 Walter...i am advocating nothing. Only equating the fact that bias does take place on questionable subject matter irregaurdless of the picture quality, for most, not all. It all comes down to a personal choice and dictating anybodys is not my thing....unlike the photographer in question and one of his fall images, if you check the comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerry_anacleto Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 Professor Carl, it sounds like your have an acute identity crisis and this is the only place in your life where you have an audience, an audience of fellow town criers. You know if you talked to people like this in public you would have serious problems to deal with. You are condescending and arrogant enough to think no one should call you on this. Well, you are wrong. Looking forward to your next hissy fit. Jerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted October 25, 2004 Author Share Posted October 25, 2004 You're sad, Jerry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul e. wog Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Gofarka...Sorry if this offends you. Perhaps your english understanding doesn't account for the inferrence "Russian mafia". That doesn't pertain to Russians or any other race but a "style" of organized crime, rather brutal and unabashed. Now i hope you don't read this wrong too. BTW what is a pom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 How considerate of you to specify the Russian mafia. It would be a shame to insult the Sicilian mafia, the Japanese mafia, the Jewish mafia, and all those other ethnic varieties of organized crime "families" which are so well known for their fairness, restraint, and gentleness. [rolling my eyes]<P> Paul, I'm completely fluent in English, and even to me, your comment sounded exactly like an ethnic slur. I'm not upset about it, though I am disappointed that you think people are actually stupid enough to buy your BS explanation about it not <i>really</i> being an ethnic slur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted October 26, 2004 Author Share Posted October 26, 2004 Although there are clearly some ethnic connections that influence rates, that's not a major source of the problem. High on the list is the lack of ability and/or willingness to give and accept constructive criticism. There are hundreds of people who truly believe that many of the TRP images are flawless and worthy of a 7/7. They aren't, but since virtually all those who know that have stopped posting the reasons why, the 7/7s win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy e Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Matt, if you believe that stuff you just stated, I got a bridge to sell you. The whole TRP is a popularity contest, pure and simple. The ostensible utility of it (which I think Carl Root has described accurately and well) has been subsumed by a big ego-massaging exercise that utterly skews the representation of work on this site. If you think that making the TRP is a true imprimatur of quality photography, you got a lot to learn. Much of the great photography on this site, sadly, must be seen after a lot of searching, often in a random manner. And after seeing the choice of this week's Photo of the Week, I now begin to wonder whether any of the movers and shakers on this site have the vaguest idea what compelling photography really is. Just my $0.02 as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul e. wog Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Hi Mikee...its good to finaly hear you stopped ranting about the history of photography. Figured you, being as articulate as you are would have got the humour in that mafia statement. We are after all talking about a subjective view of a photograph with a shelf life of 3 days aren't we?.......well you did, we know that.. you just like being a "naughty boy" and twisting things. Its real odd the post starts out with something we should all agree 100% on and before long the wolves start feeding.on each other. Is every post in the PN forum like this? No wonder nothing changes much, the entertainment value is too high. Carl thats very true and who wins anyway? These mate rating "mob" boys do nothing but cheapen the system for all of us. Most agreee (that bother with these posts) these contrasted out "made for web viewing" images aren't the best being offered here. Go in and give a negative comment and they go howling to abuse and then they have their enforcers deal with you. Its really nothing more than a hillarious joke. Bunch of amatures band together to try to make a bad piece of art look good through mutal confirmation...then they all sit back and feel stupid for giving some junk a 7/7...or hopefully they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spaghetti_western Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 "...since virtually all those who know that have stopped posting the reasons why, the 7/7s win"... theres no rule to say you must comment on them all cuz no one has the time to do that. just pick one everynow and then, say why that type of crap dont work, then ditto to rate whatever else is pretty much same "...after seeing the choice of this week's Photo of the Week, I now begin to wonder whether any of the movers and shakers on this site have the vaguest idea what compelling photography really is"... what you gonna do, for some, if it aint badassed street it just aint compelling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted October 26, 2004 Author Share Posted October 26, 2004 spaghetti, comments will be ignored unless there is sufficient volume to give them credibility. Even then, there would be retaliation, rather than thanks. You can't compensate or normalize any of this, only limit it at the input level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spaghetti_western Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 true that, carl. anyway, seems this guy is poster boy for why a handful of subscribers wouldnt be missed if they didnt re-up were brian to vary the TRP view not to favor them. i agree more variety there would be best for users and even benefit the site. gotta think many see what goes on and get turned off before they get feet wet here so never to subscribe. too bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robidooo Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Even if you give them a critique telling them what their work is really worth, or they will ignore you since you are not part of the group, or they will retaliate even harder on your stuff (rating, never comments on how to improve), or, and it happen to me twice on 1 single photo, they will get moderator to remove your comment and rating. On one photo, I was sure I had rating and commented, I came back to the photo to see nothing from me. So I really took note of the photo by bookmarking it and came back later to see my comment disapeared again. All that because I gave an average rating on a shot that mate-raters elevated to a 6.5 or more. There is just nothing to do about it since they seems to be getting bigger and stronger on this site. I won't go away because of that since the site still have value for me but their is definitely features that I don't use anymore, as the TRP which are completely useless in all aspects. It should be replaced by a querying engine where one can search for different specifications and save their own queries. You could then want to see all photos except those from x, y, and z photographers, which you know are mate-raters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted October 26, 2004 Author Share Posted October 26, 2004 Peter, "everyone who rates is a mate rater" Not true. Don't you ever rate and comment on images by photographers you've never seen before? It's only mate rating if you have some indication that a high rate will be reciprocated. "as for teh TRP pages - these are a constant source of amusement and an occassional source of wonder." A 'constant source'? It got old long ago. I would gladly trade in 'a source of wonder' for a source of inspiration and discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony bell Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 You guys DO know there's a whole wide world out there beyond the TRP don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mg Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 "It should be replaced by a querying engine where one can search for different specifications and save their own queries. You could then want to see all photos except those from x, y, and z photographers, which you know are mate-raters." Oh Man ! How much I like this idea ! Especially if we could still see the same total number of TRP images after getting rid of those who now OWN the TRP ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mg Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 By the way, since Carl started this thread, somebody I hardly heard of before has jumped in the defaut page of the TRP with 3 images - including this one, which hits the top with 108 ratings as I write, 73 of which are 7/7s !!!!!!!!!! Here goes: http://www.photo.net/photodb/ratings_breakdown?photo_id=2815057 I do not mean to jump to any sort of conclusion regarding the photographer (as I said, I hardly knew his name), but can we honestly continue to believe that ratings have any meaning at all when such a picture gets 73 times 7/7 out of 108 votes...? It is not an ugly shot, I suppose, but come on: is the subject really so original? Is the sky really outstanding or would it be best to have it brighter, with nicer colors etc? And isn't the composition a bit of a boring alignment ? Please also bear in mind that this image is manipulated, and that it is so non-descriptive, that it could be a composite and still be achieved in 10 different ways in PS. To me, this image is a 5/5 at best. Anyway, "just an opinion" - of course ! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul e. wog Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Marc...look at his port and you see he's had a lot of pics that have done very well. I didn't particularly like that image u quoted either but from a suspected imageart standpoint so never rated it. The second pic i gave a 7/7 and absolutly in love with it. He doesnt blast the contrast like so many digital shots and they actually have mood to them....both those pics climbed very slowly from the back of trp then i guess it became "anything but a flamingo" for a lot of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blago Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Carl We don't know what the site best interests are. Maybe, we are not supposed to know. Big money is needed for the site to be maintained and developed. The natural way to collect this money is to promote digital cameras and technologies connected with them. Everything is going digital, no matter if we like it or not. So, the newcomer with a new digital camera in hand is entering PN and sees a lot of fantastic digital images "made with cameras" similar to his own. And many of the newcomers are just not realizing what they see are not real photos but their replacements - greatly simplified software images of reality, to put it in this way. What to ask more - bright images, pure and (over)saturated colors, sharp lines ? This shocking beauty is enough for many beginners to open the bag with 7s and to start pouring them forth. Later some of them are subject also to "corruption" by some of the recipients of their generosity. "Jesus, my first 7/7 !", and so on. We call it "mate-rating". It comes naturally (imo) and not as a result of some perfidious plot. But mate-rating is stimulated also by the low raters. Afraid of low ratings mate-raters are pushing their rates higher what in turn makes low raters go lower. Both practices are abusing the existing system because they have nothing to do with photography. These are some simple calculations and computer gaming. Mate raters and low raters - both sides of the same coin - successfully ruining the efforts of the vast majority of the gallery members. It was already proposed: zero all the ratings and limit the recourses (number of high and low ratings) permitted monthly per user. Not a perfect solution but at least some regulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted October 26, 2004 Author Share Posted October 26, 2004 His rating average for 1700 images is 6.4/6.2. On this site, you get what you give and it doesn't take long to figure that out and either opt in or opt out. Too many decent photographers who are otherwise reasonable and intelligent people have traded in objective feedback for increased visibility. The solution involves making the submission of images for high visibility contingent on the ability and willingness to give and receive constructive criticism. . . . . and keeping the two viewing venues separate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted October 26, 2004 Author Share Posted October 26, 2004 Blagoy, I agree with your analysis to a point, except that I do think that a few people really try to rate the TRP honestly, but they look like abuse by comparison. Statistically, they are insignificant and will always be so. I asked the question about the site's best interest because the information we've received doesn't quite add up. We're told that the TRP clicks don't generate a very high return rate, but maybe you're right that the manipulated style that has grown in popularity is being reinforced here to attract the kind of viewer who might click on the ads that do generate revenue. If this is true, then this is another argument for segregating a relatively more tradional approach to image presentation for the benefit of both the site and those users. Don't traditional photographers spend at least as much money as digicam buyers? I'm on the verge of buying my first digital camera, but I want to see what people can do with the camera, not the software. I'll bet I'm not alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monoxide Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 You're not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mg Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 An amusing news flash... Brian Mottershead (whose judgement about photos I certainly respect) has apparently rated the image I posted a link to in my previous post... And now I'm here regretting that ratings are anonymous again...:-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_nitsche Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Marc... 6/6... the ratings really aren't anonymous... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 I was just testing some new code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now